Do loud pipes save lives? (2021)(autoweek.com)
autoweek.com
Do loud pipes save lives? (2021)
https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a35952569/loud-pipes-do-not-save-lives/
93 comments
>Maybe now my fellow riders can agree that their motorbikes are a bit too damn loud, and tone it down.
It would be awesome if the rest of us didn't have to rely on the possible good sense of a motorcyclist and, instead, noise pollution laws were strictly enforced. I highly doubt any Harley out there is even capable of operating below the legal limit in CA of 80dbA.
It would be awesome if the rest of us didn't have to rely on the possible good sense of a motorcyclist and, instead, noise pollution laws were strictly enforced. I highly doubt any Harley out there is even capable of operating below the legal limit in CA of 80dbA.
> I highly doubt any Harley out there is even capable of operating below the legal limit in CA of 80dbA.
All Harleys that are sold comply with the legal limit. It's the owners that put on third-party exhausts that cause the noise.
All Harleys that are sold comply with the legal limit. It's the owners that put on third-party exhausts that cause the noise.
I literally feel pain in my ears every time a Harley pass by. I wish I could sue for damage all of those, because I'm pretty sure that's what's happening
Agree with you about loud pipes, but I am not sure why you had to throw high-vis clothing in there, unless the point is simply not to rely on any one advantage and to assume every driver is going to try to kill you. I do and heartily encourage every other rider to do as well. There is data to argue in favor of high vis clothing, and honestly given that the only downside to it is a perception of personal style I don't get why every rider isn't wearing it.
My point is that no matter what you do or wear, you should assume you are invisible and, like you said, ride like every driver is trying to kill you.
High viz vests CAN be beneficial. Don’t rely on them.
High viz vests CAN be beneficial. Don’t rely on them.
I used to ride in London every day. The difference in rate of almost-crashes before and after I get a different (yet still legal) exhaust was substantial.
> Anecdotally, anyone who rides will you tell you this.
Not really? Most folks in, e.g., /r/motorcycles think it is a bunk claim.
The stereotype is that it is mostly Harley riders who say it.
Not really? Most folks in, e.g., /r/motorcycles think it is a bunk claim.
The stereotype is that it is mostly Harley riders who say it.
In my experience, there is a difference between something like a loud harley and a loud sportsbike. With a harley, I can't easily tell which direction the sound is coming from, but with a sportsbike I can.
Frankly, I don't understand how it is that there are so many obnoxiously loud bikes on the road. I've always assumed that it has nothing to do with safety and is more a reflection of the (deliberately) inconsiderate nature of some people.
Frankly, I don't understand how it is that there are so many obnoxiously loud bikes on the road. I've always assumed that it has nothing to do with safety and is more a reflection of the (deliberately) inconsiderate nature of some people.
If they really did save lives, you would think the highway patrol officers who rely on their bikes for their safety and entire professional existence would be equipped with them. No, this is just obnoxious leisure bikers wanting to justify their unnecessary noise they inflict on the rest of us.
Most police bikes I see in the US are Harleys, I don't think they're buying anything out of practicality. If they were, you'd see a lot more BMW police motorcycles.
Michigan State Police somewhat controversially switched to BMW motorcycles in 2012, and actually disbanded the motorcycle unit for awhile because of safety issues. Apparently it's returning this year, still using the BMWs.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2024/02/15/m...
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2024/02/15/m...
BMW models with direct shaft drive and horizontally opposed twin pots are better for safety in several ways.
Lower centre of gravity, some "extra" leg protection in sideswipes | converging hits on roundabouts (from the pots and pot crash bar protectors), and zero chance of chain wear with better direct power pickup | engine braking from the shaft.
These are all grounds for some heated debate wherever two wheels gather, but I'll swear by them.
Lower centre of gravity, some "extra" leg protection in sideswipes | converging hits on roundabouts (from the pots and pot crash bar protectors), and zero chance of chain wear with better direct power pickup | engine braking from the shaft.
These are all grounds for some heated debate wherever two wheels gather, but I'll swear by them.
US police buy almost exclusively domestic vehicles.
Not when it comes to motorcycles. BMW and Honda are both extremely common police bikes. LAPD’s motorcycle fleet used to be almost entirely Kawasakis.
My anecdata says the only way to be seen in a bike is to dress like a cop. People noticed me a lot more with a white helmet than a red and black one.
Uh, up until the last 20 years or so, CHP bikes were like that.
If motorcycles require loud pipes to be safe, they should probably be banned altogether - but I don't really think it is necessary to have loud pipes.
A really good pollution tax would cover noise pollution. It never seems to get enforced
That's one, very narrow way of viewing it. Another would be that cars lack the necessary visibility to be safe. No one in their right mind would advocate to banning cars. Instead, sensors could be employed to make up for the lack of visibility in cars. This should maybe be the topic of discussion, to introduce these types of safety sensors as essential. ABS breaks weren't the norm a few decades ago, so why not start discussing making these safety sensors standard? One point of discussion could be what types of sensors there are, which vehicles they are employed and if they are effective.
Sensors form a big issue, though. The newer Teslas especially are excellent at ruining safety sensors for the rest of the industry. Now instead of turning your head left to look left and see your blind spot out of what should be a far enough back window to see your blind spot, you can crouch over to press buttons and then look at the small circle on the big screen which shows your blind spot. Fine otherwise but it incentivises not even looking out of your left window as you begin turning, and takes your sight off the road in general, even if for just a look, and even when automatically activated by the blinker. It's a profoundly unsafe safety system because it acts to take your sight away from where it should go, even if it means you don't have to quickly turn your head, and it allows lazier and less safe vehicle design as you no longer have to make sure the driver has possible sightlines to blind spots.
Worse perhaps are all types of proximity sensors, because you can only trust them when they go off, and even then not always. Most cars get dirt on them, snow on them, rain on them and that tends to mess with proximity sensing enough to either disable the sensors or cause them to go off randomly. I don't think anyone has ever yet trusted the blind spot sensors on their mirrors to do a lane change, only aborted one because of them. Such non-camera sensors would fix almost nothing because at best they would sometimes cause people to reconsider swerving into a motorcyclist, and even then they usually go off way too late to prevent misfires while driving normally.
These are great features when they work but overengineering around fundamental design problems seems to me to only put people too much at ease in their cars and make bad driver behaviour worse, because why spin your head around to check when you can just not do that and stare at the little screen or trust your array of easily fooled sensors to do safety in your place. I think solutions like finding alternative pillar configurations, creating long or short enough front side windows for you to see back, harsher driver's license testing with longer required study periods and in cases where you can't do anything else such as some pickups just doing what semis do and having several well-aligned mirrors instead of one set of nice-looking ones would be a lot safer in the end.
As well as getting people who can't drive for shit off the road. That's sort of included in driver's license requirements but there's surely some other methods for it that I have not mentioned.
Worse perhaps are all types of proximity sensors, because you can only trust them when they go off, and even then not always. Most cars get dirt on them, snow on them, rain on them and that tends to mess with proximity sensing enough to either disable the sensors or cause them to go off randomly. I don't think anyone has ever yet trusted the blind spot sensors on their mirrors to do a lane change, only aborted one because of them. Such non-camera sensors would fix almost nothing because at best they would sometimes cause people to reconsider swerving into a motorcyclist, and even then they usually go off way too late to prevent misfires while driving normally.
These are great features when they work but overengineering around fundamental design problems seems to me to only put people too much at ease in their cars and make bad driver behaviour worse, because why spin your head around to check when you can just not do that and stare at the little screen or trust your array of easily fooled sensors to do safety in your place. I think solutions like finding alternative pillar configurations, creating long or short enough front side windows for you to see back, harsher driver's license testing with longer required study periods and in cases where you can't do anything else such as some pickups just doing what semis do and having several well-aligned mirrors instead of one set of nice-looking ones would be a lot safer in the end.
As well as getting people who can't drive for shit off the road. That's sort of included in driver's license requirements but there's surely some other methods for it that I have not mentioned.
I advocate for banning cars.
You mean transitioning to a car-less society over a reasonable period of time or out right car ban? I am talking about the later in my comment.
An I say "reasonable" intentionally vague because there are degrees of car dependency that varies between regions. On average, I believe Europe might be closer to banning private cars. USA I would bet not so much.
An I say "reasonable" intentionally vague because there are degrees of car dependency that varies between regions. On average, I believe Europe might be closer to banning private cars. USA I would bet not so much.
I also advocate banning cars. The greatest mistake our society has made. Not too late to correct it.
Thanks for considering taking away the tool I need every day to get to my job
Thanks for assuming there are no other possible alternatives.
By car: 30 mins. Public transport: 1 hour 30 mins. I'm not wasting 2 extra hours each day.
It's not like society without cars would be the exact same just without cars. People would live closer to where they need to be. It would be more public transport. More 15-minute cities etc.
It's a bit dishonest to argue for continued car dominance just because it's already status quo.
It's a bit dishonest to argue for continued car dominance just because it's already status quo.
This is why there's such a disconnect between people who have to commute to work and people advocating for your policies. You flippantly suggest something that would make another person's life much more miserable, and then when he protests, you handwave it away by saying that society will just be better and he'll live closer to his job.
No, that's not what I said. I said others things would accommodate the new status quo, hence it's not fair to compare it to "exactly as today, but without cars". Like, you pose that it would be much more miserable. I don't think it would be.
Oh you’re right. Sorry. Let’s never change anything.
People aren't obligated to live where you think they ought to live, and no one put you in charge of using social control mechanisms to force them to conform to your opinions.
Way to miss the point, and please f off with your statements about me wanting to force people to do anything. What a shitty way to adress someone you disagree with. We do better here on HN, as a long term member I'm disappointed in your behavior.
If better options were available, people would choose those. When we don't make better options because people are stuck in a local optima of car culture, there is no change. My point was what I wrote: you can't make a comparison with less cars as if everything else in society would have remained equal. Of course there would be secondary effects to handle the fact that people would have to live and travel differently.
If better options were available, people would choose those. When we don't make better options because people are stuck in a local optima of car culture, there is no change. My point was what I wrote: you can't make a comparison with less cars as if everything else in society would have remained equal. Of course there would be secondary effects to handle the fact that people would have to live and travel differently.
Please "f off" with your "dishonest" and "f off" statements.
You don't get to call people "dishonest", tell them to "f off", call them "shitty", then get pious and offended when someone takes exception to that.
> We do better here on HN, as a long term member I'm disappointed in your behavior.
You've been here since 2013. I've been using this account since 2010 so you can "f off" with that, too.
> If better options were available, people would choose those.
"Better" according to who? You?
If people can't get food, they start eating rats and shoe leather. It doesn't make it "better".
You don't get to call people "dishonest", tell them to "f off", call them "shitty", then get pious and offended when someone takes exception to that.
> We do better here on HN, as a long term member I'm disappointed in your behavior.
You've been here since 2013. I've been using this account since 2010 so you can "f off" with that, too.
> If better options were available, people would choose those.
"Better" according to who? You?
If people can't get food, they start eating rats and shoe leather. It doesn't make it "better".
> I've been using this account since 2010 so you can "f off" with that, too.
The point was that I expected better from _you_, a long standing member here. But your response again shows I need to adjust that expectation.
The point was that I expected better from _you_, a long standing member here. But your response again shows I need to adjust that expectation.
> People would live closer to where they need to be.
And work the first 25 days out of each month month to pay for it, LOL.
And work the first 25 days out of each month month to pay for it, LOL.
Oooor perhaps it could be the opposite, that things move closer to where people are. Instead of living in dead suburbia, there actually would be stores, cafes etc in those areas, instead of people having to take a car for every little thing they want to do in their life.
Non-remote work cannot be closer to everyone, if every employee of the company lives in a different suburb, on opposite ends of town.
As for stores, suburbanites will still go to the a cheaper, larger store with more selection. That's usually in the same suburb, but still a good drive.
As for stores, suburbanites will still go to the a cheaper, larger store with more selection. That's usually in the same suburb, but still a good drive.
So how will they make loud electric motorcycles? As surely we will have to mandate those as well for the green future... What sort of alarm sound they will be mandated to make?
That's already an issue with cars. Most EVs beep or sing or hiss quite loudly when you put them in reverse gear and at low speeds where tyre noise is low they have to augment with ICE and/or whining sounds to not be so silent and deadly. Especially the last few decades from the walkman to ipods to modern bluetooth headphones it's already been really important that vehicles make noise to warn pedestrians of their presence. Suddenly getting reversed on in a parking garage makes nobody happy.
Bikes are perfectly safe. It's car drivers who aren't.
most motorcycle accidents involve only the motorcycle and no other vehicle and motorcycles have a considerably higher rate of fatal crashes due to things like hitting fixed barriers.
What that stat doesn't tell you is the rate of near misses.
It's anecdotal I know, but as someone who commutes on a bike, the number of times I almost crash by myself per journey is near zero, yet the number of times a car tries to inadvertently occupy the same piece of road as me is multiple.
It's anecdotal I know, but as someone who commutes on a bike, the number of times I almost crash by myself per journey is near zero, yet the number of times a car tries to inadvertently occupy the same piece of road as me is multiple.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/motorcy...
Here is some data from USA, I've not read it.
Here is some data from USA, I've not read it.
Oh, bikes are perfectly safe; it's fixed barriers that aren't.
This. Guns don‘t kill people, people kill people. And for every bad toddler with a gun, we better have two good toddlers with a gun.
In the days of Wright Brothers, it would have been perfectly safe to take off and fly your airplane in any direction as long as you can see where you are, but it's obviously no longer safe these days, and there are strict rules about where you are allowed and who you have to contact at which locations.
"What is safe" obviously depends on who else are on the road.
"What is safe" obviously depends on who else are on the road.
No, they are not. They are an extremely hazardous form of transportation.
I like riding motorcycles, but I don't fool myself into thinking that they're anywhere near as safe as a modern car.
In fact, they are responsible for more than 28 times the fatalities per mile traveled than cars.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
I like riding motorcycles, but I don't fool myself into thinking that they're anywhere near as safe as a modern car.
In fact, they are responsible for more than 28 times the fatalities per mile traveled than cars.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
As a driver, the only times I've had near-accidents with bikes have been when they came up on me unexpectedly. Like left side shoulder when I'm stuck in traffic in the left lane.
I only got my license a few years ago, public transport works quite well here in Norway, seems I haven't yet learned all the sneaky ways bike riders can surprise ya.
That said, I see idiots behind the wheel causing near crashes several times a week so yeah I guess as a rider those scare you a lot more.
I only got my license a few years ago, public transport works quite well here in Norway, seems I haven't yet learned all the sneaky ways bike riders can surprise ya.
That said, I see idiots behind the wheel causing near crashes several times a week so yeah I guess as a rider those scare you a lot more.
I'm not saying car drivers are better or worse (there's plenty of both on average), but you need to watch out for different things when around bikes.
Riding through red lights without stopping or yielding to traffic turning right, riding on sidewalks forcing pedestrians out of their way, zipping back and forth between the sidewalk and road, changing lanes without signaling and assuming the cars will read their minds and slow down for them are all things I saw in my few years living in a bigger city with lots of bicyclists.
Never got into an accident with one, but I was a passenger in a car that nearly hit one. She either had psychological problems, or was intentionally trying to get an insurance payout, because she absolutely tried to get hit, then freaked out on the driver when he managed to slow down in time.
Riding through red lights without stopping or yielding to traffic turning right, riding on sidewalks forcing pedestrians out of their way, zipping back and forth between the sidewalk and road, changing lanes without signaling and assuming the cars will read their minds and slow down for them are all things I saw in my few years living in a bigger city with lots of bicyclists.
Never got into an accident with one, but I was a passenger in a car that nearly hit one. She either had psychological problems, or was intentionally trying to get an insurance payout, because she absolutely tried to get hit, then freaked out on the driver when he managed to slow down in time.
As a pedestrian, I want bicycle riding banned from sidewalks and any other pedestrian area.
It is in most places. At least in Europe where I live there's a limit of 12 years old for cycling on sidewalks and pedways marked with only a pedestrian sign, whereas sidewalks which are wide enough and marked with both a bicycle and pedestrian sign as well as paths marked with both a bicycle and pedestrian signs are for pedestrians and bicyclists equally. And of course this has its logical conclusion in bicycle-exclusive bike lanes and bike paths with no pedestrians at all on them. It's especially no issue if everyone gets the rules, generally on wide sidewalks where bikes are allowed the outer side with buildings is for pedestrians and the inner side near the road is for cars. Where no bicycle-OK sidewalk exists you just use the road or walk with the bike.
I can't find it anymore, but I remember seeing some article or infographic about how many 10 thousand people are loosing sleep whenever one person is driving with a loud pipe through an urban area at night. I get why you love your pipe and your car and driving and everything, but ultimately everything is broken when it comes to urban areas.
I have been a 100% motorcycle rider (that is, no cars) for roughly 38 years until my last accident ended it all, but no, I don't regret anything of it: riding bikes is simply a wonderful experience. In my youngest years I would love having a loud pipe, and I had a moderately loud one, until the day they stole my muffler in the school parking lot and that moderately loud turned into an absolute mess.
Anyway, having been young and full of testosterone, I perfectly understand why some people want loud motorcycles (and cars). To me it all boils down to ancient instincts: the loudest beast is the one who marks the larger territory, and is perceived as the most powerful one, that is, the one who collects more females. This can be understandable in youngsters, not so much in grown ups.
Not only does the sound from bikes not reduce traffic violence, the sound itself causes immense amounts of measurable and real harm in the form of noise pollution. Many studies are confirming that noise pollution causes way more damage to the health of human beings than we realized.
Obviously, some things in the world are necessarily loud, like a jet engine on a plane. Or they are loud with a meaningful purpose, like a big sound system at a concert. But some things are unnecessarily loud with no purpose. Mostly vehicles with modified exhaust and sound systems, but also some other things.
If the noise pollution studies are accurate, reducing or eliminating these sounds will extends the lives of untold numbers of people. People will be healthier thanks to getting better sleep not being woken up. People will have lower blood pressure, and therefore reduce heart disease. People will have less road rage, which will in turn reduce traffic violence.
How do we actually reduce these sounds? Our current policies are not working. Fining people, impounding vehicles, I don't believe any of that will work. It will simply create revenues for the government.
But what solutions does our current society offer that will work? The criminal justice system is not a solution, and will simply cause even more harms. Any solution I can think of that will work is ludicrous and unrealistic.
The best thing I can think of is to simply ban the import or manufacture of the exhaust pipes to begin with. If the supply of them is greatly reduced, and the prices go way up, that could go a long way. It's too much to enforce any restriction one by one. It has to be from the top.
Obviously, some things in the world are necessarily loud, like a jet engine on a plane. Or they are loud with a meaningful purpose, like a big sound system at a concert. But some things are unnecessarily loud with no purpose. Mostly vehicles with modified exhaust and sound systems, but also some other things.
If the noise pollution studies are accurate, reducing or eliminating these sounds will extends the lives of untold numbers of people. People will be healthier thanks to getting better sleep not being woken up. People will have lower blood pressure, and therefore reduce heart disease. People will have less road rage, which will in turn reduce traffic violence.
How do we actually reduce these sounds? Our current policies are not working. Fining people, impounding vehicles, I don't believe any of that will work. It will simply create revenues for the government.
But what solutions does our current society offer that will work? The criminal justice system is not a solution, and will simply cause even more harms. Any solution I can think of that will work is ludicrous and unrealistic.
The best thing I can think of is to simply ban the import or manufacture of the exhaust pipes to begin with. If the supply of them is greatly reduced, and the prices go way up, that could go a long way. It's too much to enforce any restriction one by one. It has to be from the top.
I am keeping the stock pipe on my bike, the folks at Honda did a good job making it have a nice tone without being loud. Decent burble I can hear while riding but only just barely over the wind. I really don't need anyone else knowing what RPM I am at as long as I can hear it myself I can use it to guide my shifting. Plus the last thing I want is to wake the neighborhood when I leave early or arrive home late.
I once had a VW pickup truck, 70hp, which at one point had a broken header. I bring up the power and model just so you know how ridiculous it was to drive around at a Nascar sort of volume. I hated driving it for the week it took to get parts.
I don't mind nicely tuned exhausts, you can make a bike sound really nice compared to the near silence out of so many stock systems. Somewhere around 80-90db both sounds good and is auditory to the rider.
Tinnitus is no fun, the wind noise already aggravates mine as is. I wouldn't risk a ride on my neighbor's Harley for more than a couple minutes, must be something like 125db.
I once had a VW pickup truck, 70hp, which at one point had a broken header. I bring up the power and model just so you know how ridiculous it was to drive around at a Nascar sort of volume. I hated driving it for the week it took to get parts.
I don't mind nicely tuned exhausts, you can make a bike sound really nice compared to the near silence out of so many stock systems. Somewhere around 80-90db both sounds good and is auditory to the rider.
Tinnitus is no fun, the wind noise already aggravates mine as is. I wouldn't risk a ride on my neighbor's Harley for more than a couple minutes, must be something like 125db.
>With the motorcycles’ front wheel next to the car’s rear wheel, one of the motorcycles can be heard inside the car and three motorcycles can almost be heard but, “unfortunately it is too late to be safe.”
These sound like very quiet cars[0] or not very loud motorcycles. Maybe my anecdata is flawed but I'm pretty sure I can make out motorcycles (and loud cars) on throttle driving an entirely different road, 100's of ft away when I'm driving, nevermind a straight piped harley 2 car lengths behind.
[0] I don't drive a new enough vehicle to attest to modern NVH isolation, but if the driver of a car truely can't hear a ~105 db exhaust noise (~comparable volume to say a horn, or the scream of someone being run over) the problem might lie with the car.
edit: for comparison, a car horn is apparently ~110-115db vs an allegedly 105db motorcycle that was tested. (5-10db is a lot more than it looks, but that should be the ~equivalent of hearing a horn honk from ~100ft away @-6dB/100ft)
These sound like very quiet cars[0] or not very loud motorcycles. Maybe my anecdata is flawed but I'm pretty sure I can make out motorcycles (and loud cars) on throttle driving an entirely different road, 100's of ft away when I'm driving, nevermind a straight piped harley 2 car lengths behind.
[0] I don't drive a new enough vehicle to attest to modern NVH isolation, but if the driver of a car truely can't hear a ~105 db exhaust noise (~comparable volume to say a horn, or the scream of someone being run over) the problem might lie with the car.
edit: for comparison, a car horn is apparently ~110-115db vs an allegedly 105db motorcycle that was tested. (5-10db is a lot more than it looks, but that should be the ~equivalent of hearing a horn honk from ~100ft away @-6dB/100ft)
Even if you can hear them, you can't tell where they are unless you can also see them.
> Researchers found that even the loudest pipes are very hard to hear in a modern car.
Somewhat related, but I think it's so weird all the hate cyclists listening to music get. I don't do it myself, but I soo often read online motorists being angry on some cyclist with their airpod in or something. But even then, a cyclist is probably much more aware of their surroundings. If that's the standard that should be applied, drivers should be mandated to drive with their windows rolled down and no music as well..
Also, this shows how useless a small bell is on a cycle to alert drivers. Hence why have a 115 dB AirZound attached to my bike as well. Sure gets their attention when they think their negligence was about to get them t-boned by a truck.
Somewhat related, but I think it's so weird all the hate cyclists listening to music get. I don't do it myself, but I soo often read online motorists being angry on some cyclist with their airpod in or something. But even then, a cyclist is probably much more aware of their surroundings. If that's the standard that should be applied, drivers should be mandated to drive with their windows rolled down and no music as well..
Also, this shows how useless a small bell is on a cycle to alert drivers. Hence why have a 115 dB AirZound attached to my bike as well. Sure gets their attention when they think their negligence was about to get them t-boned by a truck.
lowkey this is a testament to how insanely dangerous cars are, if even such a deafening sound still leaves the driver unaware of their surroundings
I can perfectly fine grasp the traffic around me until a motorbike comes from behind overtaking left and right, then sitting on my bumper for 5 seconds and hiding behind the c-pillar because he’s eyeing the next overtake. Don’t ride like a dick and you’re visible.
I can’t load the article because of the captcha, but based on the comments I’m assuming it’s about loud motorbike exhausts.
It’s not just bike exhausts that are loud either. Every night I hear a nearly endless stream of modified cars with pop and bang tunes. There’s not even the supposed justification that it makes you safer in a car, it’s just people doing deliberately inconsiderate things with their vehicles. It’s inflicting annoyance and misery on people for no reason but clout, and we should have less tolerance for it in society generally. It’s also the same drivers who are racing through city centres. I don’t know if they’re just racking up loads of fines and not paying them, or if they’re using swapped plates, but either way, it needs to be enforced better.
It’s not just bike exhausts that are loud either. Every night I hear a nearly endless stream of modified cars with pop and bang tunes. There’s not even the supposed justification that it makes you safer in a car, it’s just people doing deliberately inconsiderate things with their vehicles. It’s inflicting annoyance and misery on people for no reason but clout, and we should have less tolerance for it in society generally. It’s also the same drivers who are racing through city centres. I don’t know if they’re just racking up loads of fines and not paying them, or if they’re using swapped plates, but either way, it needs to be enforced better.
These ones do: https://youtube.com/watch?v=64liF2VuLxI
How do I control the volume of pipes in bash?
Betteridge’s law applies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
In the hierarchy of road hatred, loud motorcycles are by far the most hated by all others (cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc). Happy to hear there's no science/safety reason to encourage loud motorcycles.
I don’t know, drivers really really hate bicyclists.
In a different way. Loathe loud motorcycles and really hate bicyclists?
But you are right. I can't recall the time anyone rolled coal on motorcyclists, much less killed them trying.
But you are right. I can't recall the time anyone rolled coal on motorcyclists, much less killed them trying.
Yes, everyone hates bicyclists, including other bicyclists. Loud motorcycles are the the only thing hated more.
I don't normally condone body shaming, but as somebody who really struggles with sudden loud noises, I will always insinuate that those with loud cars and motorbikes are compensating for something.
As someone who rides an unmodified bike, I hear the transmission more than the exhaust, which is more high-pitched. I can understand wanting better acoustics. But really annoyingly loud bothers me too and I never hear bikes in my car until they're past me.
This is total garbage lol.
You can absolutely watch cars move out of the way when motorcycles with loud pipes come through...
Its amazing to experience on your own as well.
You realise you're posting under a scientific study conducted by Association for the Development of Motorcycling, the Polytechnic University of Bucharest and a noise emission specialist from Netherlands In the study somebody actually tried to measure this. You need a stronger rebuttal than "this is total garbage lol". You can make your own scientific study if you believe this results are for some reason incorrect, or at least try to point out where the study made a mistake.
Its still total garbage, it was spun.
Move? I'm staying in my lane. And I can't hear them if they're behind me.
In California traffic they can lane split so many drivers when they hear a bike coming up (or see one) will hug the outside of the lane to allow them space to safely pass.
IME the Doppler effect makes it hard to hear on approach, and then loud after they've passed.
I don't think it's even that, it's just that most of the noise points backwards. So I can only hear them when they're in plain sight
Flawed premise in their research. They’re saying you can only hear motorcycles within 33ft, which is too late to react anyhow.
The times when I’ve intentionally revved my engine to get attention, it’s because a driver was about to merge into me, and they were very close. In heavy traffic I’m often feathering the clutch, and pulling it in quickly to rev is an easier reach than hitting my horn.
Anecdotally, when I switched from a small somewhat quiet bike to a full size cruiser I had WAY fewer sketchy interactions with drivers. They noticed me much better, which kept me safer. I also find loud pipes annoying, but not as annoying as people in cars killing others with the inattention.
The times when I’ve intentionally revved my engine to get attention, it’s because a driver was about to merge into me, and they were very close. In heavy traffic I’m often feathering the clutch, and pulling it in quickly to rev is an easier reach than hitting my horn.
Anecdotally, when I switched from a small somewhat quiet bike to a full size cruiser I had WAY fewer sketchy interactions with drivers. They noticed me much better, which kept me safer. I also find loud pipes annoying, but not as annoying as people in cars killing others with the inattention.
Anecdotally I have had the opposite experience. My smaller bike with a v-twin engine and loud aftermarket exhausts is apparently much less noticeable than my larger sport-touring bike with quiet stock exhausts.
I’m glad to see the data to back that up. Maybe now my fellow riders can agree that their motorbikes are a bit too damn loud, and tone it down.